People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal Feb 14, 1977 No. Crim. 28999Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that due process does not require that a defendant receive formal admonitions regarding the consequences of admitting a probation violation, as the procedural requirements for guilty pleas under Boykin-Tahl are not applicable to probation revocation hearings.

Issues

Whether due process requires formal admonitions regarding the consequences of an admission of a probation violation.
Whether the procedural requirements for taking a guilty plea apply to probation revocation hearings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is nothing in this record, or in common experience, to indicate that the kind of formal admonitions and waivers required for taking a guilty plea should be required for probation revocation proceedings.”

“At a probation revocation hearing the issue is different from that presented on the original charge, the procedure is different, and the method of proof is different, to such an extent that the forms of procedure prescribed in Boykin and Tahl have little relevance.”

Opinion

FILES, P. J.

This is an appeal by a defendant from an order sentencing him to state prison following revocation of probation.

Defendant’s conviction was based upon his plea of guilty to selling heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11352, subdivision (a). On March 16, 1976, proceedings were suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. One of the conditions of probation was that he continue in the residential drug treatment program at Metropolitan State Hospital and not leave unless authorized to do so by the hospital staff and his probation officer.

[136]

A probation officer’s report filed on April 28, 1976, stated that appellant was in violation of probation in that he left the program at Metropolitan State Hospital without permission on March 26, and that a urinalysis taken March 30 tested positive for propoxyphene and phenobarbital. The report reviewed defendant’s history and recommended that probation be revoked and sentence imposed.

Defendant was present at the formal probation revocation hearing held on April 28. He was advised of his rights to have a hearing, to present evidence, to use the subpoena power of the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The public defender was appointed to represent him. After consulting with his client, counsel informed the court that defendant conceded the fact that he was in violation. This exchange followed:

“The Court: Mr. Garcia, do you admit that you left the Metropolitan Hospital residential drug program without permission?

“The Defendant: Yes, I do.”

Defendant urged the court to allow him to pursue another drug treatment program instead of sending him to prison. The court then adjourned the hearing to May 12, to give the probation officer an opportunity to review defendant’s proposal. On May 12 a further hearing was held, at the conclusion of which the court sentenced defendant to state prison.

He is appealing from the judgment.

Defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed because his revocation hearing did not conform to the due process standards set forth in

People v. Garcia

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief